Fore Will (origin at its finest)

Originally posted by Golden Boy
All the knowledge we have points to the chemical reaction as consciousness in its entirety.

That is completely absurd.

Science studies chemical reactions and correlations between brain activity and behavior but we cannot scientifically study consciousness or will.

Consciousness itself is the evidence of free will.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Well, yes, essentially I am. So are you. There is no evidence that there is anything beyond the chemical reactions. There is no evidence for free will. So we are all, essentially, just extended chemical reaction chains.

I can't scientifcally prove that you have conciousness, so for all I know that statement is true for you.

But I know I have consciousness.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by Jezus]

reply to post by Jezus


Of course we can. Studying brain activity shows us exactly where these concepts of "consciousness" come from - they are merely terms coined by people ignorant of the workings of the brain to explain what they know to exist.

What you can't scientifically prove doesn't matter. What actual scientists can, however, is a different story. And they don't agree with you.

reply to post by davesidious


Consciousness is a fundamentally abstract and theoretical concept that cannot be proven scientifically to exist.

One cannot prove scientifically that another person has consciousness.

Originally posted by Jezus
That is completely absurd.

Science studies chemical reactions and correlations between brain activity and behavior but we cannot scientifically study consciousness or will.

Yes, we can, by studying the chemical activity of the brain. Ever heard of an electroencephalogram (EEG)? It measures brain waves. It studies consciousness.
We also have conducted experiments wherein certain chemicals are introduced into the brains of rodents. These chemicals effect certain changes. One chemical was even shown to produce instant love. Not just lust, but love. The rats given the chemical would form a lifelong pair.
And potheads the world over constantly conduct experiments on the effects of chemicals on consciousness.

Consciousness itself is the evidence of free will.

No, it isn't, as consciousness could very well exist without free will.

I can't scientifcally prove that you have conciousness, so for all I know that statement is true for you.

But I know I have consciousness.

Having consciousness does not equal having free will.

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by davesidious

 

Consciousness is a fundamentally abstract and theoretical concept that cannot be proven scientifically to exist.

Actually, yes, it can. We can prove that something possesses all the characteristics of consciousness. For example, response to stimuli.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Yes, we can, by studying the chemical activity of the brain. Ever heard of an electroencephalogram (EEG)? It measures brain waves. It studies consciousness.

That is correlation. Correlation does not prove causation. You cannot study consciousness directly scientifically because it is non-physical.

Originally posted by Golden Boy One chemical was even shown to produce instant love. Not just lust, but love. The rats given the chemical would form a lifelong pair.

We can compare correlations and behavior, but you can only speculate on emotions and feelings because they are experienced.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
No, it isn't, as consciousness could very well exist without free will.

Having consciousness does not equal having free will.

Consciousness and freewill are synonyms.

I can explain this in more words, but I think if you really thought about it you would understand.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Actually, yes, it can. We can prove that something possesses all the characteristics of consciousness. For example, response to stimuli.

Responding to stimuli does not prove consciousness.

We can logically assume that a person who seems conscious is conscious

However, in the context that we are discussing this issue it is important to understand that consciousness does not exist in a scientific way.

It is fundamentally an abstract concept.
It is fundamentally theoretical.

Originally posted by Jezus
That is correlation. Correlation does not prove causation. You cannot study consciousness directly scientifically because it is non-physical.

Evidence?

We can compare correlations and behavior, but you can only speculate on emotions and feelings because they are experienced.

As I just told you, it has been proven that certain emotions are caused and manipulated by certain chemical interactions. If you propose that there is something more, you must present evidence to support this claim.

Consciousness and freewill are synonyms.

No, they aren't.

Consciousness is being aware. Free will is being able to choose.

Responding to stimuli does not prove consciousness.

I know. I was just simplifying it.

We can logically assume that a person who seems conscious is conscious

Yes.

However, in the context that we are discussing this issue it is important to understand that consciousness does not exist in a scientific way.

Yes, it does.

It is fundamentally an abstract concept.
It is fundamentally theoretical.

No, it isn't. I've explained to you why we know that it is physical. If you assert that there is something more, present the evidence.

reply to post by Golden Boy


We can study correlations between chemicals and brain activity but this is not studying consciousness.

Any discussion of emotions or feelings is fundamentally speculation.

Emotions and consciousness are experienced and cannot be observed directly.

Just because an animal or person appears to be having an emotion because of perceived correlations does not prove a particular emotion or any consciousness at all.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Before you can understand that consciousness and freewill are one in the same is absolutely vital to understand that consciousness is fundamentally non-physical and because of that it cannot be proven in a scientific way.

Of course we logically assume that other people are not biological robots and actually have consciousness but this cannot be proven scientifically. It may be logical but it is logical assumption.

Consciousness is a concept.
Consciousness is a feeling of the mind.

The brain may be a "reaction chain set in place" but the mind/consciousness is freewill.

Consciousness proves freewill.

There's no free will. Well that's my educated opinion. Einstein is with me so I'm in good company :p

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by Golden Boy

 

We can study correlations between chemicals and brain activity but this is not studying consciousness.

Again, there is no evidence that there is anything more to consciousness than chemicals and brain activity. Until you provide evidence that there is something more, that we are not really studying consciousness, your claims are baseless.

Before you can understand that consciousness and freewill are one in the same is absolutely vital to understand that consciousness is fundamentally non-physical and because of that it cannot be proven in a scientific way.

Except that a) there is no evidence of free will and b) there is no evidence that consciousness is not physical. In fact, there is evidence to the opposite.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Well, yes, essentially I am. So are you. There is no evidence that there is anything beyond the chemical reactions. There is no evidence for free will. So we are all, essentially, just extended chemical reaction chains.

I can't scientifcally prove that you have conciousness, so for all I know that statement is true for you.

For some reason Golden Boy has denied the possibility of meta-chemical reactions even though science itself doesn't make meta-physics undeniable. People just choose to deny meta-physics, and we can simply questions their reason rather than mess with a waste of time to prove their own life for them. They question ours and we can use the same question right back that they just taught us.

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
But aren't you a primate as well as us all??? Or are you the self acclaimed zoo keeper?

No, darling, I'm a member of the public. But I have a season ticket.

Originally posted by dzonatas
For some reason Golden Boy has denied the possibility of meta-chemical reactions even though science itself doesn't make meta-physics undeniable.

Physics Boy here. Could you describe a metachemical reaction, please?

Is this a reaction that involves things at a higher level than chemistry? That would be Newtonian mechanics.

Or are you somehow referring to reactions at a more fundamental level than chemistry? That would be subatomic physics.

People just choose to deny meta-physics

Who are these people? Metaphysics is the study of that which is thought to lie beyond physics, namely, the study of mental entities, or spiritual ones as you doubtless prefer. Show us the entities.

we can simply questions their reason rather than mess with a waste of time to prove their own life for them. They question ours and we can use the same question right back that they just taught us.

Denial and avoidance. Answer the questions directly, please, or admit that you are not worthy to participate in the discussion.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Again, there is no evidence that there is anything more to consciousness than chemicals and brain activity. Until you provide evidence that there is something more, that we are not really studying consciousness, your claims are baseless.

Correlation is not causation.

This isn't a matter of proof or evidence.

This is a matter of comprehension.

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of consciousness.

It is a fundamentally abstract concept.

Logically we can make assumptions about the conscious of other entities however from a purely scientific view consciousness does not exist.


[edit on 25-2-2010 by Jezus]

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Well, yes, essentially I am. So are you. There is no evidence that there is anything beyond the chemical reactions. There is no evidence for free will. So we are all, essentially, just extended chemical reaction chains.

I can't scientifcally prove that you have conciousness, so for all I know that statement is true for you.

For some reason Golden Boy has denied the possibility of meta-chemical reactions

Which are?

even though science itself doesn't make meta-physics undeniable.

No, but it does make it completely and utterly pointless. By definition, a metaphysical claim is not physical. It has zero effect on the physical universe. And we only experience the physical universe. What we cannot experience has no effect on us, and therefore may as well not exist.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Again, there is no evidence that there is anything more to consciousness than chemicals and brain activity. Until you provide evidence that there is something more, that we are not really studying consciousness, your claims are baseless.

Correlation is not causation.

So?

This isn't a matter of proof or evidence.

Yes, it is.

This is a matter of comprehension.

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of consciousness.

Yes, there is. I have showed it to you. Now present your evidence that it is non-physical.
Put up or shut up time.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy
All the knowledge we have points to the chemical reaction as consciousness in its entirety.

That is completely absurd.

Science studies chemical reactions and correlations between brain activity and behavior but we cannot scientifically study consciousness or will.

Consciousness itself is the evidence of free will.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Well, yes, essentially I am. So are you. There is no evidence that there is anything beyond the chemical reactions. There is no evidence for free will. So we are all, essentially, just extended chemical reaction chains.

I can't scientifcally prove that you have conciousness, so for all I know that statement is true for you.

But I know I have consciousness.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by Jezus]

Thank you for explaining to golden boy....

I was feeling very tired last night, so wasn't really up to explaining to golden boy...

reply to post by Astyanax


Perhaps I may get one of those shirts off U ????

Well maybe in time ????

Originally posted by Astyanax
Physics Boy here. Could you describe a metachemical reaction, please?

It wasn't obvious? A meta-chemical reaction is similar to a chemical reaction, as the meta-physical is similar the physical.

Is that hard to understand? If so, please study the prefix "meta-" in a dictionary.

Is this a reaction that involves things at a higher level than chemistry? That would be Newtonian mechanics.

Depends on what you consider "higher"... I just used a prefix.

Or are you somehow referring to reactions at a more fundamental level than chemistry? That would be subatomic physics.

Depends on what you consider "subatomic"... I just used a prefix.

Metaphysics is the study of that which is thought to lie beyond physics, namely, the study of mental entities, or spiritual ones as you doubtless prefer. Show us the entities.

No. That is the "magical" definition of the word if you don't want to understand physics.

As I stated in my other post:

When there is no math to explain the phenomena, they simply call it metaphysics. What has happened is that anything labeled "metaphysical" also gets considered "delusional mumbo-jumbo." It's as if someone tried to take the literally meaning of the prefix "meta" to not mean what it does when attached to the word "physical."

My point proved by your sample response. I don't see what's so hard about that!

we can simply questions their reason rather than mess with a waste of time to prove their own life for them. They question ours and we can use the same question right back that they just taught us.

Denial and avoidance. Answer the questions directly, please, or admit that you are not worthy to participate in the discussion.

My point proved by your sample response. I don't see what's so hard about this!

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Astyanax
Physics Boy here. Could you describe a metachemical reaction, please?

It wasn't obvious? A meta-chemical reaction is similar to a chemical reaction, as the meta-physical is similar the physical.

This is not a definition.

Is that hard to understand? If so, please study the prefix "meta-" in a dictionary.

Meta
a. Beyond; transcending; more comprehensive: metalinguistics.
b. At a higher state of development.

Doesn't really help.

Metaphysics is the study of that which is thought to lie beyond physics, namely, the study of mental entities, or spiritual ones as you doubtless prefer. Show us the entities.

No. That is the "magical" definition of the word if you don't want to understand physics.

As I stated in my other post:

When there is no math to explain the phenomena, they simply call it metaphysics. What has happened is that anything labeled "metaphysical" also gets considered "delusional mumbo-jumbo." It's as if someone tried to take the literally meaning of the prefix "meta" to not mean what it does when attached to the word "physical."

However, this is not the definition of metaphysics.

Metaphysics
# (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
# (used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.
# (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
# (used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.

So please answer the question and stop dancing around.

It's all the same thing. We cannot construct without thought so without thought there is less of a physical world around us.


This isn't just about needing ideas to invent either. Why did we discover fire?

Did we find it by accident and then all of a sudden we have heat and cooking, or did we think that we needed something to heat us and to cook our soups?


Either way it doesn't matter. If we thought of the uses of fire first then the idea came before the physical. If we saw naturally occurring fire and had the idea to use it for our own benefit the idea still came first.


Physical and metaphysical are intertwined. I can imagine a universe that I cannot see and it may or may not be there, but I can still see it so it is real.

As a species we can see things in our minds that we then search for in the physical world to make that thought become a real thing.

So everything that exists in our world that isn't of a natural cause is proof that we have a non physical self. We have layered selves in fact and they have distinct roles in ours lives.

So everything we think is real and everything we experience is real. But it may not be real in another physical world to the person standing next to us.


[edit on 25-2-2010 by The Teller]